Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#421

Post by sofixa »

suddenexample wrote: post #415
ardacinar wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we sure that the things listed here will not go away in a few years if Google continues to exist? https://killedbygoogle.com/

People bringing up this site in this specific way is a pet peeve of mine. What's the largest product that they sunset with no replacement? Stadia? Given the number of products Google has, I wouldn't consider their track record below average.

And they reimbursed all purchases, including hardware you got to keep.

As sad as killing Stadia was (it's still the best cloud gaming service, the UX was marvelous), it couldn't have been done better.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#422

Post by BuyMyBitcoins »

croes wrote: post #257
beambot wrote: post #141

This feels a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face... Unlike Microsoft's antitrust case of the 90s, Google seems much less anti-competitive by nature. Sure, they have unprecedented scale in search... but even that hegemony is being threatened by others in AI. If anything, going after Google with a DoJ kludgel will cause a servere freeze on startup M&A across all of FAANG. With IPO windows (mostly) closed,…

Google killed the Edge browser with the same tricks MS used. The use money and Google Play services to hinder competition. Not really less anti-competitive.

Anecdotal, but I wanted to give Edge a chance. I found out that it is quite possibly the most feature-creep rich browser on the market. Its sole purpose seems to be “let Microsoft monitor your entire browsing experience”.

I also feel like Microsoft’s heavy handed dark patterns trick less computer savvy people into using it, and those people probably aren’t aware of how much info Microsoft is collecting about them. As a result, I seriously question that Edge’s market share is organic because people actually like it.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#423

Post by kccqzy »

nickfromseattle wrote: post #102

How much blame do we assign Sundar for this outcome? Yes, he was just continuing where Larry / Sergey left off, but it did happen under his watch. Is there anything he could have done to avoid this outcome? In a way that Google shareholders would have found acceptable? Or was this outcome inevitable?

Yes. Sundar could have fought harder against the internal forces that thought cloud was just a fad and made Google a stronger player in Cloud. Then, Google would not have been as reliant on search/ads.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#424

Post by sofixa »

croes wrote: post #257
beambot wrote: post #141

This feels a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face... Unlike Microsoft's antitrust case of the 90s, Google seems much less anti-competitive by nature. Sure, they have unprecedented scale in search... but even that hegemony is being threatened by others in AI. If anything, going after Google with a DoJ kludgel will cause a servere freeze on startup M&A across all of FAANG. With IPO windows (mostly) closed,…

Google killed the Edge browser with the same tricks MS used. The use money and Google Play services to hinder competition. Not really less anti-competitive.

Google didn't kill the Edge browser, Microsoft gave up. If Mozilla can have an independent from scratch browser, Microsoft of all companies could have one too. It's just easier and cheaper for them to rebrand Chromium and call it a day.

And I'm not buying the argument that progress on the Web (tech stack) should stop so that it's easier to make/maintain a browser.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#425

Post by ocdtrekkie »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #367

I'm not sure people understand what the consequences of taking away Google's ad revenue is. If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. The same will happen when Google loses its ad revenue. Google is an ad company. By opening up all its trade secret data, i…

Google collapsing would be an incredible gift to the economy. Some companies are paying 30% in their advertising budget, before we even talk about the Play Store tax. We all pay an incredible amount for Google's existence, and a massive renaissance of technology development would occur if it stopped sucking all of the air out of the room.

Apart from all of the illegal things, it's just bad that it exists.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#426

Post by guhcampos »

fallingknife wrote: post #409
mondrian wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concentration is the default in an unregulated environment. Sure pure monopolies with 100% market control are rare but concentration is rampant. A handful of companies dominating tech, airlines, banks, media.

Concentration seems much more prevalent in heavily regulated markets e.g. utilities / airlines. In many cases regulators have even encouraged this e.g.finance. There is no default for unregulated markets. It's a question of whether the economies of scale outweigh the added costs from the complexity that scale requires. It costs close to 100x as much to build 100 houses, run 100 restaurants, or operate 100 trucks as i…

You are comparing Apples and Oranges. You just can't compare the barrier of entry for Software business and an Airline, even without any regulations. It's just orders of magnitude more expensive to buy an airplane than a laptop, and most utilities are natural monopolies so they behave fundamentally different.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#427

Post by hollerith »

sofixa wrote: post #424
croes wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google killed the Edge browser with the same tricks MS used. The use money and Google Play services to hinder competition. Not really less anti-competitive.

Google didn't kill the Edge browser, Microsoft gave up. If Mozilla can have an independent from scratch browser, Microsoft of all companies could have one too. It's just easier and cheaper for them to rebrand Chromium and call it a day. And I'm not buying the argument that progress on the Web (tech stack) should stop so that it's easier to make/maintain a browser.

Some of us would have preferred for "progress" on the web stack to have stopped about 20 years ago.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#430

Post by guhcampos »

hmottestad wrote: post #399
sdwr wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why do they want Google's search index?

Crawling the web is costly. I assume it's cheaper to use the results from someone else's crawling. I don't know what Kagi is using to argue that they should have access to Google's indexes, but I'd guess it's some form of anti trust.

Let me add more: crawling the web is costly for EVERYONE.

The more crawlers out there, the more useless traffic is being served by every single website on the internet.

In an ideal world, there would be a single authoritative index, just as we have with web domains, and all players would cooperate into building, maintaining and improving it, so websites would not need to be constantly hammered by thousands of crawlers everyday.

Post reply on HN